Peter Jackson’s “King Kong” Is 3 Hours Long??
You know, I love Peter Jackson just as much as the next fanboy, but seriously… what gives? Apparently he just turned in his final cut of King Kong and it’s a concise 3 hours long. Universal has agreed to release the monstrosity as is, but Jackson himself will shell out an extra $32 million just to make up the budgetary difference (the total price tag for the movie now comes to a staggering $207 million). I can understand making epic-length movies out of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but isn’t this a little different? Do we actually need 3 hours to tell the story of King Kong? Something tells me Jackson has issues with “trimming the fat”, so to speak. Then again, he recently dropped 70 pounds on himself, so what’s the problem here?
Comments (2)
I love LOTR and 3 hrs is still a long stretch…
Wait til the DVD comes out so you can watch it in parts!
Posted by Baychuk P.I. on October 27th, 2005I think three hours is great,if i have to pay 7 and 8 dollars a ticket plus 3 dollars for a soda, and maybe 4 to 5 dollars for popcorn. then i want a movie that at least has a story, substance, and action. It worked for the LOTR movies and it will work for KING KONG. Peter Jackson knows people want a movie worth their money. And he will give it to them. I think KING KONG will be worth every penny.
Posted by Larry King on November 8th, 2005Leave a Reply